| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 09:19:14 AM |
| Object: |
California And Gay Marriage |
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/sept/article102.html
California And Gay Marriage
By Nicholas Olson
Sept. 7, 2005
It was announced today that California is sending a bill to the governor
approving the rights of gays to marry. I say hurray for ending another form
of discrimination.
Republicans and their bible-thumping constituents can hem and haw all they
want about their sanctity and that it is against the nature of humanity and
whatever. All I have to say is that I am sick to my stomach that this form
of discrimination is even up for debate.
The stupidest argument I have heard in this whole ordeal is the one where
they have men and women marrying their pets. Let's be logical about this.
If a man wants to marry a woman, he needs her consent, at least in this
country. Since when does your dog ask you to marry it? I can see it now. It
gets down on one knee and pulls out this ring... Wait, that never happened.
The next argument is about sanctity. You know, when two heterosexual people
divorce at over 60 percent of all marriages and infidelity runs rampant and
don't get me started on alimony. Besides, if you want to get married in
this country, shouldn't gays have the same right to be as happy and
miserable as a hetero couple?
The most controversial reason why I am happy about this decision is because
it opens the door for the secular part of our culture to go for the jugular
of the religious right. You see, if you want to call marriage a religious
ceremony or a representation of their love before a spiritual being, then I
can go to the words of James Madison where he specifically noted that there
is a distinct separation of church and state. If religious people want to
keep their precious word "marriage," then they can do without the rights
afforded by our government to married people by having an equitable
separation of this right for all citizens. This would mean that you could
be married but get no benefit by it. After all, if it only matters in the
eyes of God that you are married then be married with no benefits.
Anti-homosexual sentiment is born out of need to discriminate against
something. At once mixed race marriage was looked down upon, so will we
adapt to gay marriage.
Americans are going to have to start realizing that change is going to come
in the form of the future youth, those that feel that the current adults
are messing things up, will not tolerate the indignities of the past. It
happened in the 1860s, it happened in the 1960s and it will happen in the
not-so-distant future. Learn to deal. California is on their way. Why not
in your state?
------------
About the author: Nicholas Olson is a long-time journalist who has been a
columnist at his college newspaper and is currently a military journalist.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 07:33:15 PM |
|
|
Ever hear of Divorce Court?
If you do not like
it create a new one, - very simple.
What do you think we're doing?
--
You are changing an instrument, not creating new one, consequently you
violate rights of those people that already have contract signed under
that instrument.
Yea man, think about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 02:34:17 AM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2005 17:33:15 -0700, wrote:
Ever hear of Divorce Court?
If you do not like
it create a new one, - very simple.
What do you think we're doing?
--
You are changing an instrument, not creating new one, consequently you
violate rights of those people that already have contract signed under
that instrument.
Yea man, think about that.
Please specify what rights will be violated. They will be still just
as married as they were before. Their rights and obligations will be
exactly the same as they were before.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 09:59:44 AM |
|
|
Please specify what rights will be violated. They will be still just
as married as they were before. Their rights and obligations will be
exactly the same as they were before.
They will be married under new definition, accoringly they are not
going to married. When people were entering into marriage they had
certain definition in mind, that definition has never been questioned
before. Once definition of the marriage has been change, couple are
not in the marriage anymore, it is just not marriage, that is it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 11:39:15 AM |
|
|
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127314784.614250.17030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
They will be married under new definition, accoringly they are not
going to married. When people were entering into marriage they had
certain definition in mind, that definition has never been questioned
before. Once definition of the marriage has been change, couple are
not in the marriage anymore, it is just not marriage, that is it.
That's probably one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard in my life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 11:46:35 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgumne$lfa$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127314784.614250.17030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
They will be married under new definition, accoringly
they are not
going to married. When people were entering into
marriage they had
certain definition in mind, that definition has never
been questioned
before. Once definition of the marriage has been change,
couple are
not in the marriage anymore, it is just not marriage,
that is it.
That's probably one of the stupidest statements I've ever
heard in my life.
You must be just a little surprised, in that case,
that you aren't the one making it.
But the dude has a point, as mangled as it is.
"Gay marriage", when you strip away all the "help
the poor homosexuals live normal lives rhetoric,
is an attack on the real meaning of marriage.
Instead of a virtuous committed union between a
man and woman based in the reality of their
natural opposition and complementarity, you
have a Brother Christopher-style load of
non-meaning based in nothing but wishes that
it was all real. Typical postmodern *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 01:30:14 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgumne$lfa$1@news.seed.net.tw...
<chirabbit@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127314784.614250.17030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
They will be married under new definition, accoringly
they are not
going to married. When people were entering into
marriage they had
certain definition in mind, that definition has never
been questioned
before. Once definition of the marriage has been change,
couple are
not in the marriage anymore, it is just not marriage,
that is it.
That's probably one of the stupidest statements I've ever
heard in my life.
You must be just a little surprised, in that case,
that you aren't the one making it.
But the dude has a point, as mangled as it is.
"Gay marriage", when you strip away all the "help
the poor homosexuals live normal lives rhetoric,
is an attack on the real meaning of marriage.
I'm married. How does the meaning of my marriage get "attacked" if two
men or two women marry? Same-sex couples in Massachusetts, Spain,
Canada, and The Netherlands are being married right now. How are they
"attacking" the institution? Looks to me like they're joining it... an
odd method of attack.
Indeed, are you his exercised about celebrity "stunt marriages", "Who
wants to marry a millionare?" 'reality' shows, and the ability of
drunken eighteen-year-olds who just met to get married by an Elvis
Impersonator at 2AM?
If you're honestly concerned about attacks upon the institution of
marriage, you should probably be looking to examples like those.
Committed same-sex couples who wish to marry, even in the face of
sometimes violent opposition by small-minded bigots, represent a real
commitment to the institution of marriage. If anything, such couples
are supporting and strengthening the institution, not attacking it.
Instead of a virtuous committed union between a man and woman based in the
reality of their natural opposition and complementarity,
You still haven't presented evidence or a convincing argument to back
up this assertion. It won't magically become true if you keep repeating
it. We readers won't magically beleive it, either.
you have a Brother Christopher-style load of non-meaning based in nothing
but wishes that it was all real. Typical postmodern *****.
What's "postmodern" about two consenting adults wanting to spend the
rest of their lives together in a recognized relationship? What's
"postmodern" about a same-sex couple raising children, and wanting the
same things for their children that mixed-sex couples want for theirs?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 05:12:42 PM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127413814.398382.36810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Instead of a virtuous committed union between a man and
woman based in the
reality of their natural opposition and complementarity,
That's the definition of marriage that I often give.
This idiot keeps saying this about it:
You still haven't presented evidence or a convincing
argument to back
up this assertion. It won't magically become true if you
keep repeating
it. We readers won't magically beleive it, either.
Well, let me see <pursing my lips and touching
my temple with my index finger>, let me think
here.
O.K., yes, I think I have it: back in the
vast regions of pre-history, by some
magical divination of reality, ignorant,
foolish, dirt-worshipping heathens made
the highly superficial, specious, irrelevant,
unconscionable discovery that the human
race consisted of two sexes: men and women.
Then, in the throes of their own ignorance
made the unseemly, homophobic, bigoted,
magical observation that, indeed, these
two sexes fit together, and in fact were
dynamically attracted to one another,
biologically, and that this attraction,
this fitting together, this opposites
attract sort of thing led to the creation,
sometimes, of children.
Then these irrational, foolish, dirt-
worshipping primoridal slime, in another
flash of ignorance, saw that this opposition
worked best when two people, one from
each sex, made a commitment to one another,
thus establishing the foundation for the
ugly, narcissistic, irrelevant natural
family.
How do we know these false magical
irrelevant interpretations of reality
are false magical irrelevant interpretations?
Gay activists and Queer Theorists finally
let the cat out of the bag, 'lo these, by
modest estimates, six thousand years later,
thus putting the lie to one of the principal
foundations of society and abolishing the
supposed meaning of marriage!
What could be simpler, other than the
thoughts that emerge from the mind of
an idiot who calls himself Michael
Altarriba? Nothing, it seems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 06:34:25 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127413814.398382.36810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Instead of a virtuous committed union between a man and
woman based in the
reality of their natural opposition and complementarity,
That's the definition of marriage that I often give.
This idiot keeps saying this about it:
My, how very gracious...
You still haven't presented evidence or a convincing
argument to back
up this assertion. It won't magically become true if you
keep repeating
it. We readers won't magically beleive it, either.
Well, let me see <pursing my lips and touching
my temple with my index finger>, let me think
here.
O.K., yes, I think I have it: back in the
vast regions of pre-history, by some
magical divination of reality, ignorant,
foolish, dirt-worshipping heathens made
the highly superficial, specious, irrelevant,
unconscionable discovery that the human
race consisted of two sexes: men and women.
Yes, males and females exist. OK so far...
Then, in the throes of their own ignorance
made the unseemly, homophobic, bigoted,
magical observation that, indeed, these
two sexes fit together, and in fact were
dynamically attracted to one another,
biologically, and that this attraction,
this fitting together, this opposites
attract sort of thing led to the creation,
sometimes, of children.
Yes, most males are attracted to females, and vice versa.
Yes, most males and most females can mate and produce offspring.
The rest of it, the "opposites attract", "dynamically attracted", etc.,
is poetic, but doesn't add anything to the previous two sentences.
Then these irrational, foolish, dirt-
worshipping primoridal slime, in another
flash of ignorance, saw that this opposition
worked best when two people, one from
each sex, made a commitment to one another,
thus establishing the foundation for the
ugly, narcissistic, irrelevant natural
family.
Actually, most familes were extended families, with multiple
generations living together. Males and females formed pair bonds, and
raised children. Then, as now, some males were attracted to males, and
some females were attracted to females. Some cultures recognized this,
but most didn't officially recognize or sanction it. Times were hard,
and it was difficult to get babies to survive to adulthood.
How do we know these false magical
irrelevant interpretations of reality
are false magical irrelevant interpretations?
You have the basics correct, but then you layer on all that poetic, but
irrelevant prose about "reality of their natural opposition and
complementarity", and all that. I can see you're really fond of it, and
it is a nice turn of phrase, but biology, history, sociology, or law it
ain't.
Gay activists and Queer Theorists finally
let the cat out of the bag, 'lo these, by
modest estimates, six thousand years later,
Humans have been around a lot longer than 6,000 years. You do know
that, right?
thus putting the lie to one of the principal
foundations of society and abolishing the
supposed meaning of marriage!
Same-sex couples are being legally married right now. Miraculously, my
marriage has not lost its meaning.
What could be simpler, other than the
thoughts that emerge from the mind of
an idiot who calls himself Michael
Altarriba? Nothing, it seems.
Ah, you've been reduced to name calling. I guess I'm winning this one.
Yay me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 06:45:08 PM |
|
|
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127432065.517196.120530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127413814.398382.36810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Instead of a virtuous committed union between a man
and
woman based in the
reality of their natural opposition and
complementarity,
That's the definition of marriage that I often give.
This idiot keeps saying this about it:
My, how very gracious...
That was actually very gracious. You should
take it and walk away. I won't suffer your
idiocy gladly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 06:50:01 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127432065.517196.120530@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127413814.398382.36810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Instead of a virtuous committed union between a man
and
woman based in the
reality of their natural opposition and
complementarity,
That's the definition of marriage that I often give.
This idiot keeps saying this about it:
My, how very gracious...
That was actually very gracious. You should
take it and walk away. I won't suffer your
idiocy gladly.
What, you threatening to subject me to more pretense? Eeeeek!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 05:38:20 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127413814.398382.36810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Instead of a virtuous committed union between a man and
woman based in the
reality of their natural opposition and complementarity,
That's the definition of marriage that I often give.
Then these irrational, foolish, dirt-
worshipping primoridal slime, in another
flash of ignorance, saw that this opposition
worked best when two people, one from
each sex, made a commitment to one another,
thus establishing the foundation for the
ugly, narcissistic, irrelevant natural
family.
Other than procreation (which we know is not the only motivation for
marriage), why is opposition a requirement for a natural family?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 06:20:47 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:HKGdnfkJiunAr67eRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Michael Altarriba" <mikealt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127413814.398382.36810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Instead of a virtuous committed union between a man and
woman based in the
reality of their natural opposition and complementarity,
That's the definition of marriage that I often give.
Then these irrational, foolish, dirt-
worshipping primoridal slime, in another
flash of ignorance, saw that this opposition
worked best when two people, one from
each sex, made a commitment to one another,
thus establishing the foundation for the
ugly, narcissistic, irrelevant natural
family.
Other than procreation (which we know is not the only
motivation for marriage), why is opposition a requirement
for a natural family?
Josh, if you don't get it by now, what possible
explanation can I give you? You reject the
historical, the biological, the self-evident,
and then you want yet another explanation.
What you are asking for is an "explanation"
of why the thing is the thing that it *is*.
What more can possibly be said? Why, you
ask, is opposition of the two sexes a
requirement for the natural family?
Because opposition brings together the
two necessary elements of the natural
family. You add, "other than procreation."
Because sex is sex, not sodomy. Sex
is the natural use of the body between
a man and a woman. Sodomy is not sex,
even if it is sex*ual*.
It's not the basis for anything but
sodomy. It is functionally *un*natural.
It's purpose is completely ephemeral.
But these essential, fundamental things
appear to mean nothing to you: two
opposing sexes, natural sex, procreation,
offspring in the natural family.
Marriage is rooted in and conforms
to that *reality.* It has nothing to
do with sodomy between two members of
the same sex. The two things are not
equivalent, not equal, not the same.
When you destroy the meaning of something
you effectively distort and destroy
the thing itself in terms of its
purpose. Purpose is the vector of meaning.
Meaning is the essence of truth.
You can try to destroy the truth all
you want. I'll defend it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 06:29:22 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:HKGdnfkJiunAr67eRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
Other than procreation (which we know is not the only
motivation for marriage), why is opposition a requirement
for a natural family?
Josh, if you don't get it by now, what possible
explanation can I give you? You reject the
historical, the biological, the self-evident,
and then you want yet another explanation.
An historical practice is not a rational basis. The biological argument
is procreation, which is not sufficient to make your case.
What you are asking for is an "explanation"
of why the thing is the thing that it *is*.
Logic and reason demand more than a claim of "it just is" or "it is
self-evident".
Because sex is sex, not sodomy. Sex
is the natural use of the body between
a man and a woman. Sodomy is not sex,
even if it is sex*ual*.
Without appealing to procreation or "it just is", what is the logic and
reason for your conclusion that only male/female sex is natural.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 06:44:07 PM |
|
|
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:2OudnQ-SbLXLo67eRVn-jg@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
in message news:HKGdnfkJiunAr67eRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
Other than procreation (which we know is not the only
motivation for marriage), why is opposition a requirement
for a natural family?
Josh, if you don't get it by now, what possible
explanation can I give you? You reject the
historical, the biological, the self-evident,
and then you want yet another explanation.
An historical practice is not a rational basis. The
biological argument is procreation, which is not
sufficient to make your case.
Historical practice is not a rational basis?
You mean ingesting food via mouth, traditional
as it is, could go the way of marriage, and
we might seated soon next to diners who
are feeding each other rectally?
Historical practice is rational if it is
rational.
And the "biological argument" is most
certainly not simply procreation -- the
opposition of the two sexes is *biological*
and is the meaning of sex. You cannot have
natural, biological sex without the two
sexes.
What you are asking for is an "explanation"
of why the thing is the thing that it *is*.
Logic and reason demand more than a claim of "it just is"
or "it is self-evident".
Logic and reason *depend* on self-evidence.
Pears are not apples. Apples are not
pears. All apples are apples: the law of
identity.
Sex requires a man and a woman. Marriage is
the social institution that formalizes that
natural relationship between a man and a
woman. Sex is not sodomy. Sodomy is
not sex. All marriages are between a man
and a woman. Pears are not apples.
Because sex is sex, not sodomy. Sex
is the natural use of the body between
a man and a woman. Sodomy is not sex,
even if it is sex*ual*.
Without appealing to procreation or "it just is", what is
the logic and reason for your conclusion that only
male/female sex is natural.
The rectum is not a vagina, no more than
the two men are the same as a man and
a woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
23 Sep 2005 09:23:20 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:blHYe.169$Ik1.145@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Sex requires a man and a woman.
Gays have sex with each other all the time.
Marriage is
the social institution that formalizes that
natural relationship between a man and a
woman.
Or between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman.
Sex is not sodomy. Sodomy is
not sex.
So, since the formal definition of "sodomy" includes oral sex, you agree
that Bill Clinton indeed "did not have sexual relations with that woman,
Miss Lewinsky" and that the impeachment charges against him were a complete
sham. Right?
All marriages are between a man
and a woman.
Except in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain and the Netherlands, and, in the near
future, more and more jurisdictions.
The rectum is not a vagina,
Irrelevant. Marriage is not about sex.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 06:57:44 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:2OudnQ-SbLXLo67eRVn-jg@comcast.com...
Historical practice is not a rational basis?
Yep. See slavery for example.
You mean ingesting food via mouth, traditional
as it is, could go the way of marriage, and
we might seated soon next to diners who
are feeding each other rectally?
Historical practice is rational if it is
rational.
An historical practice may or may not be rational. But it must be
evaluated without an appeal to its history.
Logic and reason *depend* on self-evidence.
Pears are not apples.
That is not a self-evident claim, but based on the science of botany.
Sex requires a man and a woman.
I concede that if you are correct on this point, the rest of your
argument follows. But, you haven't made the case for it.
Without appealing to procreation or "it just is", what is
the logic and reason for your conclusion that only
male/female sex is natural.
The rectum is not a vagina, no more than
the two men are the same as a man and
a woman.
Those observations provide no rational basis for saying anal sex isn't
natural (not to mention that many other varieties of sex that female
couples, male couples, and male/female couples engage in).
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 07:25:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:44:07 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in
message news:2OudnQ-SbLXLo67eRVn-jg@comcast.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote
in message news:HKGdnfkJiunAr67eRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
Other than procreation (which we know is not the only
motivation for marriage), why is opposition a requirement
for a natural family?
Josh, if you don't get it by now, what possible
explanation can I give you? You reject the
historical, the biological, the self-evident,
and then you want yet another explanation.
An historical practice is not a rational basis. The
biological argument is procreation, which is not
sufficient to make your case.
Historical practice is not a rational basis?
You mean ingesting food via mouth, traditional
as it is, could go the way of marriage, and
we might seated soon next to diners who
are feeding each other rectally?
Actually, there ARE some religious groups who REFUSE to take
nurishment via a TUBE in the arm... Imagine that... There ARE other
ways...
HEY! And what about VITAMINS? The historical practice is to eat
healthy and lots of fruits and veggies, but today, some people choose
to eat pills instead of FOOD.
You can also get fiber by drinking a liquid instead of eatting food
with high fiber.
There ARE also health benefits to mineral collonics (sp?)... you
know.. enemas... People have been taking stuff up the butt for their
health since at least the early 1800's.
Historical practice is rational if it is
rational.
Slavery was rational for 4,000 years... and to be honest, there are
MANY U.S. corporations who still practice indentured servitude (a form
of slavery) in 3rd world countries... It's VERY RATIONAL since it
makes corporations a fortune.
And the "biological argument" is most
certainly not simply procreation -- the
opposition of the two sexes is *biological*
and is the meaning of sex. You cannot have
natural, biological sex without the two
sexes.
Ask two men or two women if they have complete, satisfying sex
together. God even put a gland that gives GREAT pleasure inside the
male *****... the prostate. Many men can ***** by simply being fucked up
the ***** because their partner's penis rubs their prostate just right.
And I looked it up... "biological sex"?? What in the hell does that
even mean? If you MEAN "procreation" say it.
What you are asking for is an "explanation"
of why the thing is the thing that it *is*.
Logic and reason demand more than a claim of "it just is"
or "it is self-evident".
Logic and reason *depend* on self-evidence.
Pears are not apples. Apples are not
pears. All apples are apples: the law of
identity.
That's a fruity explaination of.. well.. I'm not SURE what you're
explaining exactly...
TALK to some gay men and lesbians... they'll tell you they fit
together JUST RIGHT and all biological urges and biological demands
are met.
Sex requires a man and a woman.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is YOUR definition of 'sex'???? It sounds
more stupid than clinton saying a ***** isn't sex.
Marriage is
the social institution that formalizes that
natural relationship
CORRECT!!! (so far... but you go on, of course)
between a man and a
woman. Sex is not sodomy.
Sodomy is not sex.
Noooooo, trust me on this one, my wife and I BOTH can tell you that
anal sex *IS* indeed sex... boy howdy is it!
All marriages are between a man
and a woman.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong-O, bucko.
Many countries and Massachusetts (soon Washington State) now marry
same-sex couples, and no matter how deep your hide your head in the
sand, they're going to KEEP getting MARRIED.
You are going through the 'denial' stages of grief... much like
millions of racists did in 1964 when Blacks could finally marry
Whites.
Pears are not apples.
What about the Asian Pear? A cross between an apple and a pear!
TOUCH'E!
Because sex is sex, not sodomy. Sex
is the natural use of the body between
a man and a woman. Sodomy is not sex,
even if it is sex*ual*.
Without appealing to procreation or "it just is", what is
the logic and reason for your conclusion that only
male/female sex is natural.
The rectum is not a vagina, no more than
the two men are the same as a man and
a woman.
So, if a couple doesn't have vaginal sex, they aren't really married,
eh? What about erectile disfuntional men? What about women with
vaginas that are too small for intercourse? What about couples who
just prefer oral and anal over vaginal? What about ELDERLY people who
don't have the sexual urge but LOVE each other tremendously?
Your twisted "definition" of marriage is fucked up.
Marriage has hardly ANYTHING to do with sex.... if you were married
you'd realize that.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 08:58:16 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> posting the following on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:46:35
GMT iin alt.atheism?
But the dude has a point, as mangled as it is.
"Gay marriage", when you strip away all the "help
the poor homosexuals live normal lives rhetoric,
is an attack on the real meaning of marriage.
Instead of a virtuous committed union between a
man and woman based in the reality of their
natural opposition and complementarity, you
have a Brother Christopher-style load of
non-meaning based in nothing but wishes that
it was all real. Typical postmodern *****.
Not married, I take it?
My marriage is not based on what others do, or what others think, it
is based on the love, trust, respect and partnership between my spouse
and myself. Two men marrying, two women marry, hell, the entire town
of Three Rocks, California marrying each other in a drive through
chapel in Vegas by a bored Elvis impersonator does *nothing* to what
we have.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 09:12:54 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:b6o6j1dfv8vfll1t93lshc1t0fo57ehecl@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> posting the following on Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:46:35
GMT iin alt.atheism?
But the dude has a point, as mangled as it is.
"Gay marriage", when you strip away all the "help
the poor homosexuals live normal lives rhetoric,
is an attack on the real meaning of marriage.
Instead of a virtuous committed union between a
man and woman based in the reality of their
natural opposition and complementarity, you
have a Brother Christopher-style load of
non-meaning based in nothing but wishes that
it was all real. Typical postmodern *****.
Not married, I take it?
My marriage is not based on what others do, or what others think, it
is based on the love, trust, respect and partnership between my spouse
and myself. Two men marrying, two women marry, hell, the entire town
of Three Rocks, California marrying each other in a drive through
chapel in Vegas by a bored Elvis impersonator does *nothing* to what
we have.
Exactly. Will I love my wife and children less if the gay couple down the
road are married rather than just living together?
Who will it hurt? What family will be weakened?
The truth is, it's just a bunch of busybodies who want to try to force
others to live by the same ideals they have. That's a sign of psychological
insecurity, or an authoritarian complex.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 09:58:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:12:54 GMT, "Scott Erb"
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> posted:
Exactly. Will I love my wife and children less if the gay couple down the
road are married rather than just living together?
Who will it hurt? What family will be weakened?
The truth is, it's just a bunch of busybodies who want to try to force
others to live by the same ideals they have. That's a sign of psychological
insecurity, or an authoritarian complex.
Um, Herr associate perfesser nimrod Scotty, you seem, as usual, to
have things exactly backwards.
Exactly who is trying to force whom to their ideals?
The concept of marriage as the union between a man and a woman, as
the basic building block of the family, and hence civilization, goes
back through antiquity, across cultures, around the globe.
The attempted perversion of the concept is the *new* thing, but you
may be right about one thing: it's "a sign of psychological
insecurity". Homosexuals hope that by stealing the totem of
legitimacy that accrues to married people, their perversions will
magically shine with legitimacy, too.
Sadly, what will happen instead, is that any remaining aura of
legitimacy that does cling to the notion of marriage, will just dry
up and blow away in the general marauding debauchery of a crumbling
civilization.
And Scott Erb will have helped.
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 01:51:05 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Please specify what rights will be violated. They will be still just
as married as they were before. Their rights and obligations will be
exactly the same as they were before.
They will be married under new definition, accoringly they are not
going to married. When people were entering into marriage they had
certain definition in mind, that definition has never been questioned
before. Once definition of the marriage has been change, couple are
not in the marriage anymore, it is just not marriage, that is it.
Are the state/local governments of Massachusetts aware they have hoards
of previously-married, but now all-of-sudden unmarried people on their
hands?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 02:42:50 PM |
|
|
Are the state/local governments of Massachusetts aware they have hoards
of previously-married, but now all-of-sudden unmarried people on their
hands?
Looks like so far not many people aware about Massachusetts court
cheating. Definitely those who have a power fully aware about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 05:57:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Are the state/local governments of Massachusetts aware they have hoards
of previously-married, but now all-of-sudden unmarried people on their
hands?
Looks like so far not many people aware about Massachusetts court
cheating. Definitely those who have a power fully aware about that.
What do you think the people who have power are going to do to deal
with the hoards of the suddenly-unmarried?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 03:00:32 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 21 Sep 2005 12:42:50 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
Are the state/local governments of Massachusetts aware they have hoards
of previously-married, but now all-of-sudden unmarried people on their
hands?
Looks like so far not many people aware about Massachusetts court
cheating. Definitely those who have a power fully aware about that.
Except that the court made no law. It directed the legislature to do
that, after finding that the constitution of the commonwealth required
it.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 02:28:11 AM |
|
|
On 21 Sep 2005 07:59:44 -0700, wrote:
Please specify what rights will be violated. They will be still just
as married as they were before. Their rights and obligations will be
exactly the same as they were before.
They will be married under new definition,
No, the marriage will still be a union of two persons.
accoringly they are not
going to married. When people were entering into marriage they had
certain definition in mind, that definition has never been questioned
before. Once definition of the marriage has been change, couple are
not in the marriage anymore, it is just not marriage, that is it.
It is exactly what it was before, a contract between two, particular
persons. If those two persons still exist, the marriage still exists.
They do not lose or gain anything by the change, i.e. the contract
remains what it was.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 01:57:50 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting the
following on 21 Sep 2005 07:59:44 -0700 iin alt.atheism?
Please specify what rights will be violated. They will be still just
as married as they were before. Their rights and obligations will be
exactly the same as they were before.
They will be married under new definition, accoringly they are not
going to married. When people were entering into marriage they had
certain definition in mind, that definition has never been questioned
before. Once definition of the marriage has been change, couple are
not in the marriage anymore, it is just not marriage, that is it.
That's amazingly stupid.
So, according to you, now that gays are getting married I'm no longer
married?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
20 Sep 2005 07:18:24 PM |
|
|
Never went to law school, did you? First year contract law: a contact
can be broken by a court, or by mutual consent of those in the
contract.
Ever hear of Divorce Court?
Hey man, you are making me laugh, when you are talking about your
supereducation
There is a difference between a contract and conditions of the
contracts, i.e. contract standard a. k. a. an instrument.
Marriage is an instrument that describes conditions of the contract
Contract itself is your agreement between you and your wife to follow
conditions of the standard (marriage) when you get married you sign a
standardized contract (description)
Note a keyword - STANDARDIZED
Here is example, you buy future contract on the exchange, that contract
have certain conditions that should be met, if not you can sue other
party. Same thing with marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 02:34:16 AM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2005 17:18:24 -0700, wrote:
Never went to law school, did you? First year contract law: a contact
can be broken by a court, or by mutual consent of those in the
contract.
Ever hear of Divorce Court?
Hey man, you are making me laugh, when you are talking about your
supereducation
There is a difference between a contract and conditions of the
contracts, i.e. contract standard a. k. a. an instrument.
Marriage is an instrument that describes conditions of the contract
Contract itself is your agreement between you and your wife to follow
conditions of the standard (marriage) when you get married you sign a
standardized contract (description)
Note a keyword - STANDARDIZED
Here is example, you buy future contract on the exchange, that contract
have certain conditions that should be met, if not you can sue other
party. Same thing with marriage.
How will a married couple's contract be changed if others are allowed
to enter into their own contract agreements?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
21 Sep 2005 09:42:30 AM |
|
|
How will a married couple's contract be changed if others are allowed
to enter into their own contract agreements?
Same thing, you change a contractual instrument - definition of
marriage, contract no longer exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: California And Gay Marriage |
22 Sep 2005 02:28:10 AM |
|
|
On 21 Sep 2005 07:42:30 -0700, wrote:
How will a married couple's contract be changed if others are allowed
to enter into their own contract agreements?
Same thing, you change a contractual instrument - definition of
marriage, contract no longer exist.
Nobody's contract would have been changed.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
